Becoming Resilient with Justin Noppe

About Becoming Resilient with Justin Noppe

Upgrade your brain, upgrade your life! becomingresilient.substack.com (https://becomingresilient.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast)

Publisher

Justin Noppe

Category

education · society & culture

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

16 Nov 2020

Latest episode

26 May 2026

Latest episodes

129 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   26 May 2026

   From Cursive to Rage Bait: The Radical Shift in How We Think and Feel Due to Digital Media

   Your Brain Is Being Renovated — And You Didn’t Sign the Permit Let me ask you something. When was the last time you sat with a difficult idea — not scrolled past it, not hit pause and grabbed your phone — but actually sat with it? Turned it over. Let it challenge you. Felt a little uncomfortable and stayed anyway? If you had to think about that for more than five seconds, we need to talk. Because here’s what’s actually happening. Your brain is being renovated in real time, and the contractor is an algorithm that doesn’t care what the finished product looks like. It just cares that you stay on the job site. The Typographic Mind — And Why You Should Care About It Neil Postman wrote about this in 1985. 1985!! His book Amusing Ourselves to Death introduced the concept of the typographic mind — a brain developed through reading. Not skimming. Not speed reading. Not glancing at captions. Reading. What Postman argued — and what the neuroscience is now catching up to — is that print culture built a specific kind of cognitive architecture. The ability to sustain focus over long periods of time. Linear, sequential reasoning. Tolerance for complexity and deferred gratification. And critically, the ability to hold an argument in your working memory and evaluate it. Now, that last one. Let’s slow down there for a second. The prefrontal cortex — the most evolutionarily advanced region of your brain — is your working memory manager. It’s the part of you that thinks before acting. That considers consequences. That regulates emotion. That empathizes. When we talk about what separates high performers from reactive people, we’re largely talking about how well they use this region of the brain. And working memory is built. It’s practiced. Through deep processing. Through reading. Through sitting with complexity. Maryanne Wolf, a cognitive neuroscientist out of UCLA, puts it plainly: reading is not born, it is built through practice. Your brain doesn’t have a reading circuit by default. You grow one. Which means, just as easily, you can lose one. The Reactive Mind — What Short Form Content Is Actually Doing to You Ready for the discomfort? A meta-study of nearly 100,000 people found that frequent short form video users scored measurably lower in three areas: attention, inhibitory control, and working memory. Let’s talk about inhibitory control specifically, because most people don’t know what that term means. Inhibitory control is your pause button. It’s the mechanism that allows you to suppress automatic urges, filter distractions, and choose a response instead of just reacting. Scratch that mosquito bite or don’t. Lose your temper or don’t. Engage with the rage bait or not. Oxford University Press named “rage bait” the word of the year for 2025. Let that sink in. A term for content that is deliberately engineered to trigger outrage became the defining word of a year. Not because people are getting angrier. Because platforms figured out that anger is the most reliable way to capture your attention. And the more disregulated you become, the better it works. When people are emotionally disregulated, blood flow shifts into the deeper limbic regions — the older, more instinctive parts of the brain. The amygdala takes over. Thinking becomes binary. Black and white. Us versus them. And the inhibitory control that keeps you sharp, measured, and socially intelligent? Gone. The brain you’re practicing is the brain you become. It’s Not Social Media Anymore Mark Manson made an observation recently that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about. He said: it’s not social media anymore. It’s attention media. And he’s right. Think about it. When Facebook launched, you followed people you knew. Your cousin’s wedding photos. Your mate’s holiday. Maybe a group for your favorite TV show. You were suspicious of strangers trying to connect with you. That made sense. That was social. Now? I scroll Facebook and one out of every four posts is from someone I actually know. The other three are targeted ads, suggested influencers, and whatever the algorithm has decided will keep me engaged longest. That’s not a community feed. That’s a behavioral experiment you volunteered for without reading the terms and conditions. The goal of attention media is singular: maximize your time on the platform. More time equals more data equals better targeting equals more revenue. You are the product. This is the business model. And the result of that model, at scale, is the reactive mind. A mind trained on fragments. Conditioned for stimulation. Increasingly unable to sit with anything that doesn’t immediately reward it. What Deep Processing Actually Gives You Here’s what I want you to understand. Working memory isn’t about being smart. It’s cognitive infrastructure. The quality of your decisions, the depth of your empathy, your ability to regulate emotion, follow through, and exert agency over your life — all of it runs on that infrastructure. And deep processing is how you build it. When you read a poem — really read it, not speed-read it — you’re not just comprehending words. You’re asking what the poet chose these words, what they were going through, what they’re asking you to feel. You’re building the capacity for inference. For reading between the lines. That’s the same capacity that lets you read a room, understand what someone isn’t saying, and make better decisions under pressure. A 2010 study found that students who listened to a podcast scored 28% lower on comprehension than those who read the same material. The literal facts were roughly the same. But inferential thinking — the ability to reason from information, not just recall it — that consistently favored reading. Critical thinking. Analysis. Insight. These things require time. They require slowdown. They require you to hold complexity long enough for it to actually reorganize something inside you. Reading is something you do. Listening is something that happens to you. That line. Sit with that one for a second. A Simple Hack — And An Honest Admission Here’s something practical. If you notice yourself reacting — emotionally flooding, getting pulled into a spiral, losing your capacity to think clearly — stop for 30 seconds. Not to distract yourself. Not to scroll something else. Just stop. Thirty seconds is enough for the thinking mind to come back online. Your prefrontal cortex doesn’t disappear when you’re in fight-or-flight. It just goes quiet. And you can call it back. And honestly? I had to look at my own habits here too. I used to spend 30 to 40 minutes on Instagram before bed. Puppy videos, fitness content, whatever. And without fail, the algorithm would work its way toward things that left me activated, frustrated, or watching some dash cam arrest video feeling morally superior about a stranger I’d never meet. How did I get there from puppy videos? I genuinely have no idea. But that’s the point. You don’t navigate the algorithm. It navigates you. So I got a Kindle. A basic one, soft backlight. And I read before bed now. Science fiction, mostly. Some classics I’d never gotten around to. Nothing prescriptive. Just reading. And the difference to how I feel — cognitively, emotionally, in conversation with people — is noticeable. I’m not saying delete everything and move to a cabin. I’m saying: be deliberate about what you’re practicing. Because your brain is adapting to whatever you expose it to, every single day. Whether you intended it or not. The question is just whether you’re the one choosing the stimulus — or whether the algorithm is. Your thoughts. Drop them in the comments. I read everything. Justin Noppe is the founder of Neuro Resilience LLC. He works with leaders and high performers on the intersection of cognitive neuroscience, emotional regulation, and transformational leadership. His book on the Human Operating System is coming soon — drop a comment if you want early access. Interested in being involved in the book process?Sign up here to be an early bird and a participator! This post is based on a recent episode of the show. If you prefer to listen, the full episode is available on Spotify or Youtube. Chapters 0:01 - Introduction to the Brain and Social Media1:31 - The Typographic Mind and Cognitive Architecture8:14 - Reading vs. Short Form Content10:34 - Emotional Regulation and Rage Bait12:25 - The Evolution of Social Media24:39 - Long Form vs. Short Form Content on YouTube29:26 - The Importance of Deep Reading34:56 - Conclusion and Upcoming Projects Other links: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit becomingresilient.substack.com (https://becomingresilient.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1)

2. 

   19 Feb 2026

   Trans-humanism: A New Era of Evolution

   Are You Ready to Upgrade Yourself? A Deep Dive into Transhumanism Where do you sit on the spectrum between “I’ll sleep on it” and “inject me now”? It started with a TV show. Back around 2013, I stumbled across Orphan Black — a series about a woman who witnesses her exact double commit suicide on a subway platform, assumes her identity, and discovers she’s one of several human clones. Within a few episodes, my mind was completely blown. Not just by the storytelling, but by the questions it forced me to sit with: How far are we willing to go as a species? What parts of ourselves are worth keeping? What does it even mean to be human? That show introduced me properly to the concept of transhumanism — the idea of modifying our species to become more than what we are naturally. And I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since. Two Flavours of the Same Question Within transhumanism, there are two broad camps worth distinguishing: Biotranshumanism — changes to our biology. Gene editing, hormone therapy, peptides, pharmaceuticals. Modifications that work from the inside out. Technotranshumanism — the addition of machinery to our organism. The cybernetic meeting the bioorganic. Think Neuralink, implanted chips, augmented reality overlays. But here’s where it gets interesting. It’s not just about what kind of modification we’re talking about. It’s about where each of us personally draws the line — and why. The Agreeability Spectrum I want you to picture a scale from 0 to 10. At zero, you’re behaviour-first, all the way. Sleep. Food. Movement. Emotional regulation. You believe the body’s natural systems, when respected and trained properly, are the greatest technology ever designed. Tradition matters to you. Maybe faith does too. You see beauty in natural limits. At ten, you’re chomping at the bit for gene edits and brain chips. You want to see the evolution of the species. You’d sign up to have your DNA rewritten to breathe methane and live on Titan if it meant expanding what humanity could become. Most of us — if we’re honest — are somewhere in between. And understanding where we sit, and why, tells us a lot about what we actually value. Two Axes to Help You Think Here’s a framework I find useful. Picture two axes: * Internal vs. External — Is the modification happening inside your body or outside it? * Reversible vs. Transformative — Can you undo it, or is it a permanent change? An exoskeleton? External and reversible. You take it off, it’s gone. Steroids or hormone therapy? Internal and transformative. The tissue changes. Your body’s processes change. Even when you stop, the impact remains. LASIK? Internal, largely permanent. Cosmetic surgery? Same category. Your phone? Technically a techno augmentation — you’re outsourcing cognitive function to an external device. You do it every time you open the calculator instead of doing the maths in your head. The point is: transhumanism isn’t some futuristic concept. It’s already woven into how we live. The question is just how far down the path you’re willing to walk. What the Data Actually Says A large Japanese survey on enhancement technologies found that only 20% of respondents said they’d personally use them. 80% wouldn’t — but 80% were also tolerant of others who did. Not for me, but you do you. In the US, an AARP survey found that 43% of adults were interested in a medical intervention to boost cognition beyond normal capacity. But that number dropped to 34% when the same enhancement involved an implantable device. The takeaway? People are far more open to biotranshumanism than technotranshumanism. They’ll consider the molecule before they’ll consider the machine. And there’s something else that came up in the data that I find genuinely fascinating: the majority of people want to try behaviour first. Even in clinical settings, there’s a preference for changing habits before changing biology. We want to earn it. We want to know we’ve done the hard work first. That resonates with me deeply. Where I Stand (And Why I’m Saying It Out Loud) I’m a behaviour-first person. Full stop. I believe the human body is the greatest technology ever made. We still don’t fully understand it. We understand inputs and outputs — we just don’t understand all the mechanisms. And to me, that’s not a limitation. That’s the invitation to get curious about it. I’m not against interventions that allow kids to fulfil their potential, or that allow adults to continue contributing and creating. But I am — and I’ll own this — resistant to the concept of engineering a human to live forever. Here’s my thinking: a lot of purpose and meaning comes from our limited spectrum. Death isn’t the enemy of a good life. It might actually be part of what gives a good life its shape. There was an episode of Love, Death and Robots that put this beautifully: if all humans develop the technology to live forever, you eventually hit a population cap. Let’s say 100 billion people. Once you’re there, you plateau. And to maintain it — you outlaw having children. A policeman literally goes around controlling who’s allowed to reproduce. That scenario is a serious problem. And it’s not science fiction — it’s the logical downstream consequence of a world that decides death is optional. The CRISPR Question No conversation about transhumanism is complete without the ethical shrapnel of CRISPR gene editing. Here’s a scenario. Your baby in the womb has a debilitating, life-altering disease. It’s not going to kill them — they’ll live a full life — but it’s going to be a hard one. CRISPR can edit it out. Do you do it? Most people say yes. That one feels clear. Now the same technology, different scenario: you want your child to have blue eyes. More muscle mass. Lower predisposition to type 2 diabetes. Same tool, completely different moral weight. Where is the line between my child needs this and I want this for my child? That’s not a question with an easy answer. But it’s the question we need to be asking loudly and often, because the technology is already here. Brian Johnson — the most measured man alive, Mr Blueprint himself — went to a jurisdiction with lax regulations and had CRISPR-based gene therapy done on himself. This isn’t theoretical anymore. The Biohacker Problem Something I keep noticing in the world around me: a lot of people are far more willing to take a pill than to change a habit. Unregulated peptide use has exploded — particularly among younger, tech-adjacent men chasing weight loss, productivity, recovery, or longevity. The New York Times has covered it. The FDA warns of serious safety risks. And yet the subculture thrives, fuelled by distrust of traditional medicine and amplified by influencers. I know people who’ll spend hundreds on supplements rather than getting seven hours of sleep, moving their body, and eating food that doesn’t come in a packet. I get the appeal. Behaviour change is hard. But the philosophy behind it matters. When you learn to regulate yourself — emotionally, physically, cognitively — you’re essentially learning the operator’s manual for your own machine. That’s the foundation. The molecule should come after you’ve maxed out what the behaviour can give you, not instead of it. Transhumanism You’re Already Doing Before you decide where you sit on this spectrum, consider what you’re already doing: * Taking caffeine for cognitive or physical performance * Using creatine or protein supplements to train beyond your natural baseline * Vaccines as preventative immune enhancement * Beta blockers to control a stress response * Laser eye surgery * Cosmetic or functional surgery * Fillers. Botox. Injecting a toxin derived from botulism into your face to look younger All of it is transhumanism. The question isn’t whether you’re on the spectrum. You already are. The question is: how far are you willing to go, and have you thought about why? What Does Being Human Mean to You? At the core of all of this is a values question, not a technology question. Research shows that positive attitudes toward enhancement correlate with achievement orientation, scientific worldview, and evolutionary humanism. They correlate negatively with tradition-oriented values. Neither side is wrong. They’re just operating from different answers to the same fundamental question. On one end: the beauty of the natural human form. The meaning that comes from limitation. The sense that messing with what we were given creates more problems than it solves. On the other: advancement, adaptation, growth. The idea that becoming something greater is the most human thing of all. I know where I sit. But I’m genuinely curious where you do. So tell me: where are you on the agreeability spectrum? Are you behaviour-first, selectively bio-curious, or fully techno-enthusiastic? Are you in the camp of nature is sacred, or are you already booking a consultation for your first enhancement? I want to hear from you. Drop it in the comments — and if you’ve got a compelling argument for why living forever is actually a good idea, I’m listening. So far, no one’s sold me. But I’m open to being convinced. This post is based on a recent episode of the show. If you prefer to listen, the full episode is available on Spotify or Youtube. Chapters 00:00 Exploring the Nature of Humanity 02:55 Transhumanism: The Future of Human Evolution 06:12 Bio vs. Tech: The Transhumanism Spectrum 09:00 The Ethics of Genetic Modification 12:12 Behavior vs. Technology: The Human Experience 14:59 The Role of Traditional Values in Transhumanism 17:47 The Future of Human Enhancement 21:09 The Balance of Nature and Technology 24:02 The Implications of Living Forever 26:49 Current Trends in Transhumanism Get full access to Thought Architecture at becomingresilient.substack.com/subscribe (https://becomingresilient.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

3. 

   27 Oct 2025

   Cut the Noise: Why You Need Philosophical Razors

   “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” — David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding If you feel dragged into debates that go nowhere, or find yourself thinking about ideas that never touch reality, you’re leaking energy. Philosophical razors are the tools to stop the bleed. They’re not about “winning arguments”; they’re about refusing to waste attention on claims that have no consequences, no evidence, or no path to action. Razors do three things for you: * Protect your focus. They filter out topics that are unfalsifiable, untestable, or irrelevant to your goals—so you spend time where outcomes actually change. * Reduce frustration. Instead of wrestling with every hypothetical, you set rules of engagement: what must be shown, what can be ignored, and when to simply move on. * Speed decisions. By pre-committing to standards of evidence and utility, you cut hours of circular thinking down to minutes. In this episode I show how a few simple rules prevent common traps: arguing over unfalsifiable “what ifs,” mistaking complexity for credibility, and giving equal weight to unequally supported ideas. I also cover when not to use a razor—because over-pruning can blind you to real signals. The goal isn’t to be cynical; it’s to be effective. Keep your curiosity. Just stop paying attention tax to ideas that won’t pay you back. RESOURCES: * List of Philosophical Razors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor) * Mind Valley Founder Says He Can Read a Book by Touching It (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrH0p-9wQs) * Wife Not Caring About Conspiracy Theories (https://www.instagram.com/p/DOUa_2tEsqK/) 🔊 Listen to the episode on Spotify (https://open.spotify.com/show/6INjxFY1iAmONVHuNOb52o) or Itunes (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thought-architecture/id1540642998) Ready to upgrade your mental OS?Join my 6-week cohort to boost confidence, cut catabolic stress, and build durable, anabolic emotions. Spots are limited—apply here Get full access to Becoming Resilient at becomingresilient.substack.com/subscribe (https://becomingresilient.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4)

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

YouTube views

137,031

Score snapshot 15 Sept 2025

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

5 ratings

Spotify

5.0 / 5

9 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 79 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

95

Social presence

0

YouTube

82

Engagement

77

Contact Becoming Resilient with Justin Noppe

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.